Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses a non-obvious failure mode: Beds24 returns HTTP 200 with validToken=false for a bad token, so callers must inspect the body rather than trust the status code. That is exactly the kind of behavioral quirk annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: capability first, usage second, gotcha third. Each sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no input params and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is checked, what comes back, when to use it, and the HTTP-200 gotcha. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax that could be misunderstood. The description also lists the response fields, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (the configured Beds24 token) and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: validity, scopes, owner id, expiry, and property restriction. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the booking/room/review siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"A cheap way to confirm setup and see which scopes are granted" gives clear context for when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings cover token/auth validation, so the routing is essentially unambiguous without them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.